Case law, Tamil Nadu land law
Miscellaneous Application No. 92 of 2020 in Appeal No. 44 of 2020
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, covering Tamil Nadu, Puducherry, and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, issued Miscellaneous Application No. 92 of 2020 in Appeal No. 44 of 2020 on 9 November 2020. It dismissed Dhanaas Property Developers' request to introduce additional letters against providing a promised swimming pool, finding that the letters were inadmissible and appeared intended to fill a weakness in the appeal.
What the case concerns
Miscellaneous Application No. 92 of 2020 arose in an appeal between Dhanaas Property Developers, represented by its proprietrix Mrs. V. Manimuthu, and Vrikshaa Vassees Welfare Association. The developer asked the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal to accept additional documents during the appeal.
The dispute concerned a swimming pool that the developer had agreed to provide under the construction agreement. The developer claimed that most villa purchasers later preferred converting the swimming pool area into an event space or another useful entertainment area because of water scarcity, maintenance charges and life issues.
Documents the developer wanted to file
The developer sought to submit letters dated from 7 September 2020 to 9 September 2020. According to the developer, these letters recorded the results of a survey conducted after the Regulatory Authority had passed its decision.
Vrikshaa Vassees Welfare Association opposed their admission. It argued that:
- The swimming pool had been promised within the project.
- The survey had no legal basis and was contrary to the agreement.
- Most signatories were tenants rather than villa owners.
- No powers of attorney from the respective owners were produced.
Tribunal's findings
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal noted that the Regulatory Authority had passed its order on 9 January 2020, the appeal was filed in February 2020, and the letters were created in September 2020. The letters therefore did not exist when the appeal was filed.
The Tribunal found that the developer was bound by the agreement to provide the swimming pool. It also found that most persons expressing opposition to the pool were tenants, and that the developer had not produced authority from the respective villa owners.
Referring to the Supreme Court decision in Satish Kumar Gupta versus State of Haryana, reported in (2017) 4 SCC 760, the Tribunal stated that additional evidence cannot be used to fill gaps or repair weak points in a case. It concluded that the letters were inadmissible and not helpful to the developer's appeal.
Result and practical effect
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal dismissed Miscellaneous Application No. 92 of 2020 with cost. The additional letters were not accepted as evidence. The ruling did not remove the developer's agreed obligation to provide the swimming pool.
This summary is generated from the source document to help you find what is relevant. The PDF above is authoritative. For advice on your own property, use LandLens One or speak to a qualified professional.
Common questions
Did the Tribunal allow the developer to file the survey letters?
No. The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal found the letters inadmissible and dismissed the application seeking to introduce them as additional evidence.
Why were the tenants' letters not accepted?
The Tribunal found that most signatories were tenants rather than villa owners, and the developer had not filed powers of attorney from the respective owners.
Did the letters release the developer from providing the swimming pool?
No. The Tribunal noted that the construction agreement required the developer to provide the swimming pool and did not accept the letters as evidence against that obligation.
What was the final outcome of Miscellaneous Application No. 92 of 2020?
The application was dismissed with cost on 9 November 2020. The source does not state the amount of the cost.
